There's no credible evidence to the contrary. Humans are causing climate change.

Sure, if you don't trust the word of one scientist then I understand the skepticism, but there are literally thousands+ of the world's leading minds that say it's scientific fact and only a handful that are still sitting on the fence about it. The few that argue against it, almost always only argue against some aspect being the cause but even they still agree that Human civilization is the cause of climate change and that climate change is real.

It's simple - We(humans) are causing climate change as a result of a vast array of ways in which we are effecting the environment. Climate change isn't the single factor of any one specific thing we are doing, it's the sum total of all of what we are doing. Our living planet cannot sustain current human consumption and growth levels the way in which we are currently doing those things.

We know what most of the worst things are that we are doing. Now we just need to find ways to change and do it quickly because all of our solutions so far will take a very long time to implement. When the house is burning down around you, you don't try to put it out with one cup of water at a time. You call in the fire department and take drastic action. 97% of all scientists say it's time to call in the fire department. What are we waiting for?

Is there a conflict of interest here? If I'm a scientist and say, "Just the same cyclical stuff that has been going on since as far back as we can track." The there is no reason to give another $2.5 BILLION dollars to you next year. Give me a million and I will write about all the man made global warming you want, as long as you give me another million next year. At a $1M each we could buy off 2,500 scientists.

Why would those other scientist question the accuracy instead of just sticking out their hand? Dumb or has a conscience. I took statistics and numbers can be presented in different ways.

I've taken my car in before and charge a thousand dollars to fix it. When it didn't solve the problem he said, "I thought that was it. I must be this other thing, it will be another thousand dollars."

Is there a conflict of interest here? If I'm a scientist and say, "Just the same cyclical stuff that has been going on since as far back as we can track." The there is no reason to give another $2.5 BILLION dollars to you next year. Give me a million and I will write about all the man made global warming you want, as long as you give me another million next year. At a $1M each we could buy off 2,500 scientists.

Why would those other scientist question the accuracy instead of just sticking out their hand? Dumb or has a conscience. I took statistics and numbers can be presented in different ways.

I've taken my car in before and charge a thousand dollars to fix it. When it didn't solve the problem he said, "I thought that was it. I must be this other thing, it will be another thousand dollars."

All you have are vague accusations and numbers pulled out of your hind end.

Meanwhile, people doing actual work get death threats from anti-intellectuals such as yourself. You personally lob false accusations about them, without the slightest bit of interest in backing up a single word you say.

No, and I apologise if I did. I wish we could all have this discussion over drinks instead of this forum. I think we all want what is best for the planet and society. I might be a little right of center on this topic based on my travels around the world and you might be a little further left based on the urgency you feel to correct the problem.SD

No, and I apologise if I did. I wish we could all have this discussion over drinks instead of this forum. I think we all want what is best for the planet and society. I might be a little right of center on this topic based on my travels around the world and you might be a little further left based on the urgency you feel to correct the problem.SD

You're not center-right. You are actively anti-intellectual. You insult, lie, and demean those who have given their life study to make the world a better place. You openly support ideologies whose allies would see a third of this forum's membership dead. You make claims about the 'left' with no evidence to support it, while ignoring that the 'right' is in fact fully guilty of these activities.

There cannot be any discussion if you refuse to look at the facts, or consider the possibility that you might be wrong. That is what scientists do - check to see if they're wrong. Such a notion is the principle behind the scientific method, and all human achievement owes credit to this.

What you have is an ideology - attempting to alter the facts to support your opinions.

Eventually, every ideology must face reality, one way or another. It often leads to a lot of people dying for no sensible reason.

I think a large part of the problem is that, on a gut level, none of this sounds serious. The earth will warm by a couple of degrees? So what, the difference between the day and night temperatures can be more than that, let alone the difference between Siberia and Death Valley. Sea levels will rise by a foot? I grew up in a port, they do that twice a day, big whoop. Etc.

I'm not claiming none of these actually aren't important - obviously there is variation in the world and a change in the average is a different matter to the average being different in different places. Of course it is.

All I mean is that, well... Ebb raises the point about seeing a mechanic when your car is broken. Fair enough. I don't own a car but my hot water boiler did go down recently and I called out a repairman. He tried to tell me what was wrong with it, I said "look, here's some money, make my boiler work. All of this time you're talking to me about pumps is time you could be fixing my boiler." It's a matter of scale. To him, the problem was my pump was doing something weird, to me the problem was that my boiler didn't work. When my computer goes down, to the repair guy my motherboard might have overheated, to me the laptop doesn't switch on. To a climate change scientist the problem is sea acidification or whatever. TO me the problem is...what precisely? I can't internalise or conceptualise what a rise in global temperatures means. Hell, there's no massive consensus from specialists on precisely what the ramifications would be, as I understand it.

So I think a large part isn't "denial" per se, more a simple lack of this being/feeling important.

But then, green taxes come in. Governments take other initiatives. Leaving aside the efficacy of those measures, that's something that does have a personal resonance. My hypothetical petrol bill has just gone up. Well, now whats happened is that something that has no tangible effect on my life is costing me money, fuck that noise. If there is any sort of a debate, even if it is a manufactured one, there will be a percentage of people who will take the side of the debate that is "I don't want to make these short term sacrifices"

Rising sea levels also means shoreline water tables get contaminated with saltwater. This is a problem for many island nations, but also a problem in e.g. Florida.

The drastic increase in inclement weather is another factor, and while we can manage the impact on the agricultural cycle easily enough, forestry poses a challenge - they don't move very quickly naturally.

The serious concern is what is happening to the oceans. Entire chunks of the ecosystem are being destroyed, at a rate the Earth has never sustained before. The worst of this only plays out over a millennia... but it can't keep going the way it is. One way or another, an unsustainable process must stop.

That said, the vast majority of the abuse is by large-scale players. Either by propping up unsustainable fishing subsidies, continuing fossil fuel subsidies and making sure that alternative subsidies get panned, non-Libertarian Republicans working to curtail and regulate consumer use of solar power, and so on. There's a lot that can be done without touching the bills that most taxpayers pay.

I think a large part of the problem is that, on a gut level, none of this sounds serious. The earth will warm by a couple of degrees? So what, the difference between the day and night temperatures can be more than that, let alone the difference between Siberia and Death Valley. Sea levels will rise by a foot? I grew up in a port, they do that twice a day, big whoop. Etc.

I'm not claiming none of these actually aren't important - obviously there is variation in the world and a change in the average is a different matter to the average being different in different places. Of course it is.

In my experience there are about four tacks taken by those who argue against climate change. Sometimes with appropriate data and discussion you can sort of push people up this ladder. Sometimes people jump back and forth among the levels, muddling the issues, and the discussion goes nowhere. I don't have time for a full writeup, but here's the general idea.

Level One: There is no climate change.Level Two: Okay, there's climate change, but it's a natural phenomenon. Any human activities are just a small part of it.Level Three: Okay, humanocentric causes are a big part of climate change, but the effects are going to be small. Or maybe they're just unknown. It's not worth worrying too much about.Level Four: Okay, the effects are pretty dire. But there's nothing we can do about it anyway -- we're not going to give up our cars and factories. So oh well, let's just live with it.Bonus Round (applies to all levels): This stuff is just too complicated for us to figure out / there's so much debate among scientists / we can't ever really know the answers here.

It sounds to me like the argument you're making is right around level three. Are you taking a sort of devil's advocate view here, or is that truly your belief? If it's the latter then I'd be happy to try to provide more details about exactly how bad things are likely to get. But if not then there are probably better things I could be doing with my time, like laundry.

In my experience there are about four tacks taken by those who argue against climate change.

Level Three: Okay, humanocentric causes are a big part of climate change, but the effects are going to be small. Or maybe they're just unknown. It's not worth worrying too much about.Level Four: Okay, the effects are pretty dire. But there's nothing we can do about it anyway -- we're not going to give up our cars and factories. So oh well, let's just live with it.

How are either of these arguing against climate change? They both expressly accept climate change and the anthropogenic contribution to this. What they're asking is merely what our response to it should be... and that is a very legitimate question. One of the key questions in all debates about climate change in general is whether we should view it as something that is preventable or manageable which lead to dramatically different approaches.

And let's remember here, we're not dealing with an exact science, especially with regards to the global warming element. As Hans von Storch points out, what the models have predicted and what has actually happened vary immensely and without more accurate models we cannot have accurate predictions... and without more accurate predictions it's nearly impossible to put together a good policy based on them. We've already seen several well-meaning initiatives arguably do more harm than good (the rise of biofuel leading to starvation and a huge hike in food prices for example). That's not to deny anthropogenic climate change... it's merely to debate what the best response to it should be.

I think my argument/point is closer to (4) on the Ebb Scale of Climate Change Denial (TM).

I accept its happening. I accept it could get bad (though I do emphasise could - see Consortium's post above mine for essentially my feelings.) Where I bow out is when I ask what you expect me - I don't own a string of factories, or even a car, nor am I a politician or politically active (my record of voting for the candidate with the first surname alphabetically is unbroken) - to do about it.

And, if the answer to "What is Kythia meant to do about this" doesn't rhyme with "beet buck ball" then, as Consortium says, we move at least partially out of a conversation about climate change qua climate change and into one of politics.

I own some pearls, if I'm feeling energetic I may clutch them. On a very good day, I may even demand that someone thinks of the children. For anything beyond gasping in horror periodically, though, I want to know how it affects me. And not just the problem - sea acidity or whatever - but also the ramifications of the solution. Because I don't know anyone in Florida or low-laying islands but I do know me. And sure, I'm prepared to pay to save/ease lives of people I haven't met, but I want to know where my money (time/energy/righteous indignation/comments that someone should do something) are going.

To put it in strict monetary terms for ease of discussion, how much is this problem going to cost us if left unchecked, how much does the potential solution cost. And I also want to put as close to zero effort as possible into finding out those answers - that, by the way, wasn't a demand you give up your precious free time to educate me, merely a position statement.

How are either of these arguing against climate change? They both expressly accept climate change and the anthropogenic contribution to this. What they're asking is merely what our response to it should be... and that is a very legitimate question. One of the key questions in all debates about climate change in general is whether we should view it as something that is preventable or manageable which lead to dramatically different approaches.

And let's remember here, we're not dealing with an exact science, especially with regards to the global warming element. As Hans von Storch points out, what the models have predicted and what has actually happened vary immensely and without more accurate models we cannot have accurate predictions... and without more accurate predictions it's nearly impossible to put together a good policy based on them. We've already seen several well-meaning initiatives arguably do more harm than good (the rise of biofuel leading to starvation and a huge hike in food prices for example). That's not to deny anthropogenic climate change... it's merely to debate what the best response to it should be.

The argument of "We can't do anything about this without significant sacrifice." It's a pretty weak argument - it costs us nothing to shift coal subsidies to solar, hydro, nuclear, etc. subsidies, and work to shut down coal plants and replace them with said alternatives. It costs us less to end fishing subsidies and setup marine reserves. I don't know how much managing nitrate runoff would cost, but it's a very 'human scale' problem.

What's left? Well, carbon recapturing seems to be effective. Dangerous for every vehicle on the road to have it, but trucks, tractors, and trains could be fitted accordingly, and this could be reinvested in crops and algaculture accordingly.

Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

Yes, the Earth's weather patterns are to an extent, cyclic. To argue that human activity is the sole cause of global warming is, in my opinion, naive. However, I cannot deny that our behavior has had a severe negative impact on the environment at large. It seems that in order to make any progress in this matter we need to accept two facts. One, it is happening. Two, there are many factors contributing, and humans are one of them. We need to accept that some, but not by any means all, of these factors are within our control and as individuals if we make whatever adjustments we can, then globally it can make a difference.

Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

This is why I said earlier that climate change has become overly politicized. I acknowledge the scientific facts everyone here is discussing, but to suggest that politicians who are supporting environmentally-friendly initiatives are truly concerned about the environment is a huge stretch. Unfortunately, almost every issue discussed on the congressional level - even social issues - are entrenched with economic interests, on both sides.

While I try to be optimistic in our political system to believe that laws being passed are in the best interests of greater society and mankind, I am not naive to the realities. If for whatever reason climate change ceases to be a money generating phenomenon (which will never happen due its booms in wind, solar, and alternative energy sectors), I can assure you that its topic will disappear from discourse among currently "environmentally-friendly" politicians - no matter how dire an issue it becomes. On the same token, if for whatever reason, climate change ceases to be a money depreciating phenomenon for certain industries, such as the oil and coal industries, it will again disappear from discourse among currently "climate-change denialist" politicians. Again, this was simply a hypothetical argument, and will not actually happen, since climate change will have drastic long-term effects - both economic and non-economic.

Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

What extra taxes are you talking about?

You've probably not spent more than a dollar a year on the government's climate change programs, some of which are rather fucking important (unless you think fucking up the harvest is okay).

Edit: To add to this...

Where is the bitching about fossil fuel subsidies, which are 2-20 times the size of the climate monitoring and research programs?

The Australian government imposed a so-called carbon tax a couple of years ago. It wasn't repealed until earlier this year after the election. It was quite literally a tax on carbon and was implemented for no reason actually related to environmental projects. It was solely because our government is in so much debt that politicians literally taxed the first thing they could think of that wasn't already taxed.

Where is the bitching about fossil fuel subsidies, which are 2-20 times the size of the climate monitoring and research programs?

Where is the bitching about the military industrial complex?

Tumbleweeds and crickets.

Maybe you guys genuinely do care about the environmental effects of climate change, and that is very admirable. But suggesting that any political party would work to reduce oil subsidies in a crusade to save the environment is a joke - even if that is the image they try to portray.

They are being lobbied in the same manner by wind and solar companies. It is essentially a tug-of-war between non-renewable and renewable energy companies. Check out the total amounts being lobbied by non-renewable and renewable energy industries for 2010:

Total for Oil & Gas: $111,839,931Total Number of Clients Reported: 178Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 744

Total for Misc Energy (i.e. renewables): $39,644,102Total Number of Clients Reported: 368Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 740

Everyone can bitch all they want about too many fossil fuel subsidies, but nothing is going to happen unless you end lobbying. That's the first step towards creating a sustainable solution for climate change. Otherwise, nothing is going to change.

100% guaranteed losers in all of this is the middle class - regardless if renewable lobbyists or non-renewable lobbyists are bribing more in the future.

The Australian government imposed a so-called carbon tax a couple of years ago. It wasn't repealed until earlier this year after the election. It was quite literally a tax on carbon and was implemented for no reason actually related to environmental projects. It was solely because our government is in so much debt that politicians literally taxed the first thing they could think of that wasn't already taxed.

Ahh sorry, missed your location

Those were rightly bunk. I'm glad the US dodged the Kyoto treaty, for all the flak we got over it.

That does not, however, equate to "The solution to climate change must solely mean more taxes." or some other such cynicism.

I wouldn't have minded as much if the money was actually going to be used for environmental protection projects, or funding research to help find ways of reducing our dependence on heavily polluting machinery/cars/processes/whatever, but the government openly admitted that wasn't the case. They needed cash and they wanted to impress the other countries in the Kyoto protocol without actually putting any real effort in. That annoyed me.